"Charity collectors" data

[pegasus]

Not scary,  but my youngest son who was a very light sleeper, woke up crying when our door bell rang!

ok scenario #2

nothing happens- they go in> see children sleeping >steal stuff and leave

In scenario 2, what if these bogus charity collectors, having got no response to their knock, open the shutter, and immediately see children inside?
What happens next?

[pegasus]

Fact: A very similar apartment was burgled earlier that year.
Deduction: 5A shutter was opened with intent to burgle.

Fact: Phones camera cash were missing at the similar apartment but not at 5A.
Deduction: 5A burglary was interrupted at the entry stage.

It's not rocket science.

[Brietta]

Fact: A very similar apartment was burgled earlier that year.
Deduction: 5A shutter was opened with intent to burgle.

Fact: Phones camera cash were missing at the similar apartment but not at 5A.
Deduction: 5A burglary was interrupted at the entry stage.

It's not rocket science.

Do we know how the burglar entered 4A?

[pegasus]

Do we know how the burglar entered 4A?

There was no damage to any doors or windows Brietta. Given that the Met have stated that entry at 5G and at 5L was through window, it is very likely IMO also at this block 4 ground floor apartment entry was through window.

[misty]

There was no damage to any doors or windows Brietta. Given that the Met have stated that entry at 5G and at 5L was through window, it is very likely IMO also at this block 4 ground floor apartment entry was through window.

Is it a mere coincidence that 3 of the burgled apartments were maintained by OC staff?

[pegasus]

Is it a mere coincidence that 3 of the burgled apartments were maintained by OC staff?

The only relevant connection is that all the burgled apartments in blocks 5 and 4 were constructed to the same specifications and therefore all had the same design of windows and the same design of window shutters, this combination is a gift to burglars see the easy opening method.
This has since been remedied at 5L by adding external bars to the accessible window, at that block 4 apartment by adding internal sliding lockable metal bars to the accessible window (and probably same at 5G?), and at 5A by adding external bars to the accessible window.

[pegasus]

Were any of the properties that were visited by bogus charity collectors burgled shortly after?
No.
Was the stranger who called at 5L a few hours before it got burgled a bogus charity collector?
No.
Did any bogus charity collectors visit blocks 5 and 4 on 3rd May?
No.
What type of person opens a window from outside?
A petty burglar.
Whatever city you live in, that's a fact.
Why make it any more complicated than that simple everyday fact?

[misty]

The only relevant connection is that all the burgled apartments in blocks 5 and 4 were constructed to the same specifications and therefore all had the same design of windows and the same design of window shutters, this combination is a gift to burglars see the easy opening method.
This has since been remedied at 5L by adding external bars to the accessible window, at that block 4 apartment by adding internal sliding lockable metal bars to the accessible window (and probably same at 5G?), and at 5A by adding external bars to the accessible window.

How, exactly, was the window at 5L easily accessible? It appears to be behind the wall of a walkway & over a 2 storey drop - or am I seeing it incorrectly?

[pegasus]

How, exactly, was the window at 5L easily accessible? It appears to be behind the wall of a walkway & over a 2 storey drop - or am I seeing it incorrectly?

IMO the Met stated that 5L burglary was entry through window.

ETA: People desperate for money to buy acohol/drugs are clever Misty.
IMO very easy to climb in that 5L window, from the wall to one side.
Why else would the the owner fit metal bars over it?

[misty]

IMO the Met stated that 5L burglary was entry through window. How wide is that gap?

Judging by the pictures on Heri's site, wide enough for someone to fall down. If the shutters were down & the window locked....why pick on that property when access appears far from safe?

[pegasus]

Judging by the pictures on Heri's site, wide enough for someone to fall down. If the shutters were down & the window locked....why pick on that property when access appears far from safe?

Why? To get money Misty, probably for an addiction.

[pegasus]

IMO possibly the first event in this case was maybe someone knocked at the wooden door?

[misty]

IMO possibly the first event in this case was maybe someone knocked at the wooden door?

Do you have a date for the burglary at 4G please?

Easter fell on 8th April in 2007. Most UK schools broke up around 30th March for up to 2 weeks. So, after 14th April I would anticipate that OC would have had less holidaymakers from UK in residence.
We know that Block 5 had less than 50% occupancy during the last week in April/beg. May, but I'm not sure about blocks 4 or 6.
Why select an occupied apartment that was quite difficult to access via one window only - not good for a quick getaway if confronted? To know it was occupied meant watching - but the couple in 4G had just arrived so only the cleaning staff/reception/driver would have officially known the apartment was to be occupied.  Otherwise - it's a lot of watching & door-knocking for a petty thief who just happened to be in the immediate vicinity during a limited time-frame.

[Alice Purjorick]

Is it a mere coincidence that 3 of the burgled apartments were maintained by OC staff?

It depends on what percentage of the total was maintained by O.C staff. Do you know what that is?
If its 90% then one would expect O.C staff to be maintaining the lions share of those burgled.
If it's less than 50% then it could still be random.
At this remove it would be difficult to work up a good case for "malice aforethought".

[G-Unit]

According to the Met;

There was a fourfold increase in burglaries in the resort peaking in April 2007. Two of the burglaries in April were in Block 5 where Madeleine disappeared from. In both these burglaries entry was via a window. In the first burglary the British occupants had just arrived on 16 April when a man called at the door asking for the "German family". He is described as white, aged in his 20s, fair/blond hair, short in length. They discovered the burglary after they returned from dinner.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150302140142/http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1257246745782

According to the bookkeeper;

on 16th April 2007 there was a theft from an apartment in Block 5 L, from where a plasma display screen, credit cards and a mobile phone belonging to the respective guests were taken.
As far as she knows, as she prepared the papers for the insurance company, the theft took place at the end of the day and according to the guests the event happened when they had left for dinner after completing check in and having left their suitcases in the apartment.
She says that she does not remember having been told that doors or windows had been forced, the guests having said that they had just left the door on the latch, however she is not certain.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-GONCALVES.htm

As with everything in this case there are questions arising.

Did the Portuguese police tell the Met there was a four fold increase in burglaries?

Did the Portuguese police tell the Met entry took place via a window? If so there would have been evidence of that.

Were the Portuguese police called? MG doesn't mention if they were, but an incident number would have been needed to claim from a UK travel insurance company.

If the claim was with a Mark Warner scheme I would expect the fact that credit cards were left in the apartment to be questioned, as the advice was to lock valuable items in the safe at reception. Also not locking the door.